Within the space found within the internet, a vast variety of humans with individual areas of expertise pull together to create one massive collaboration that forms a resource of collective intelligence useful for the community as a whole. The internet has revolutionized the way knowledge is obtained, stored, shared, and expressed. Google's latest endeavor to digitize every book ever written into an online category is further proof of this. In Chapter 1 of Convergence Culture, many thoughts are proposed about the essential nature of a collective intelligence found in our social structure. The reading argues that seeing a convergence of major media outlets and public mediums is an inherent movement in the rapid exchange of information being traded, created, and stored.
Henry Jenkins cites the media philosopher Pierre Levy by stating, "No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity" (Pg. 26). The reading goes on to say that "what we cannot know or do on our own, we may now be able to do collectively" (Pg. 27). It may be premature, but one can assume that if this book could be updated to represent our current social make up, this excerpt could end with, "we now are able to [know or do things] collectively." With the wealth of information presented within our abstract virtual world, it is incredible that individuals can access the collective intelligence of our society by merely turning on a computer screen and connecting to an internet source. Wikipedia is a phenomenal example of the "user-generated" content of the web that comes together to form somewhat of a collective intelligence resource.
The reading states that "the new knowledge culture has arisen as our ties to older forms of social community are breaking down" (Pg. 27). This point strikes a particularly relevant chord in every human that knew communication before smart phones. It certainly is a sign of the times that one can attend a movie that has historical implications and then learn more about those implications on a hand held device while they walk out of the theater. The old barriers to obtaining and contributing to a public display of collective intelligence are coming down, and our progress a society will be bother better off and worse off for it.
The internet poses a threat to the well being of our society in that it allows destructive ideas to be transmitted to a broader audience. If they are distributed enough, they may become a part of the shared knowledge that Jenkins refers to. This shared knowledge is beliefs that a group believes to be shared by all. "Misinformation can lead to more and more misconceptions," Jenkins says, and "any new insight is read against what the group believes to be core knowledge" (Pg. 28).
The information we consume and contribute in public mediums must be checked and held accountable lest we find misinformation wiggling its way into our core knowledge. Allowing this to happen allows us to skew the way we perceive the world to include a dangerous perspective.
I would like to see the post analyze one topic more thoroughly, rather than summarizing the chapter. I would like to see more of the writer's voice and opinion as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we are quite to the point where we can say "we now are able to [know or do things] collectively." There are still many people out there with limited access to internet or even have a smart phone. I think being in a college setting gives us a different perspective about collective intelligence than say rural or poor America. I do however agree that misinformation could be a real worry about the future. If everyone trusts the information they then people could abuse that power to persuade people to do things or incept ideas. Just look at how many people say that "I read/saw it on the internet/television so it must be true."
ReplyDeleteI like that you took Jenkins' chapter with a very sharp eye. Something that stood out to me in your post was that "the internet poses a threat to the well being of our society in that it allows destructive ideas to be transmitted to a broader audience." Although I agree with you that not all the information on the web is valid, the internet provides for a virtual checks and balances, just like in "Spoilers Sucks." When ChillOne provided info, people weren't very easily convinced by his posts. People tried to find evidence of his claims. In addition, the "brain trusts" also tried to make sure that the information posted was valid. I think that when we know something will be posted publicly for everyone's discretion, we also need to be aware that there will always be someone checking out and trying to disprove or approve what we say...it's human nature.
ReplyDeleteIncredible clarity in this post. You state that "The information we consume and contribute in public mediums must be checked and held accountable" I'm curious as to what means you think would be appropriate to do so? Or to put it another way, what measurement or yardstick should we use to inform us to decide what to check and hold accountable? Jenkins also points to the fact that given a large enough group hierarchies inevitably develop to form insular knowledge communities. It seems this notion of holding entire knowledge bases accountable could entail problematic ends if it is either conceptualized as being done from a single sovereign source or alternatively as if it is only a matter of individual responsibility. I think groups like wikipedia prove given a large enough group of people you can also reverse the relation of hierarchization. If everyone is looking for the single spot on the white surface it is easier to catch than a single source trying to take in an entire field.
ReplyDeleteNice post, though I have to agree with Ana... I'm not sure about the internet's capacity to spread harmful ideas. The internet has been around for a long time now... and usually, the stuff that gets spread is fairly benign. Many would argue that the idea that child pornography should be protected under net neutrality laws is a harmful idea that has proliferated thanks to the internet... but that's more a reflection on how the web ought to be than on what ought to appear on the web. On another note, it's interesting to think that the bad -isms -- racism, fascism, etc. -- don't really proliferate online. As far as I know, hatred has yet to go viral.
ReplyDeleteBad -isms are definitely online, if you are looking for them. In fact, some things, like pro-ana groups, have found life online that they hadn't ever before. However, I don't think the democratic nature of knowledge dispersal on the internet is more likely to actually affect society's worldviews than other types of communication. People have always managed to be wrong in public.
ReplyDelete